Why is this dumb BITCH sitting on the USA Supreme Court?

It is clear that if Ginsberg thinks there are better Constitutions out there that she should be going to where those are and sparing the rest of us in the U.S. her opinions.

Clearly Ginsberg has missed the point of the U.S. Constitution. Just listen to her and decide for yourself.

www.patriothobbits.com

DOJ: Feds Can Tell Church Who Its Ministers Will Be
By Terence P. Jeffrey

In yet another stunning attack on freedom of religion, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department asked the Supreme Court last week to give the federal government the power to tell a church who its ministers will be.

The case involves a former teacher at Lutheran school, who along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is pushing a claim that a Lutheran congregation should be forced to restore her ministry position.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and American Atheists, Inc. have filed briefs siding with the Obama administration against the church.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, and the American Center for Law and Justice are among those who have filed briefs supporting the Lutherans.

In 1999, the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., hired Cheryl Perich to be a lay teacher on a one-year contract in its kindergarten.

The next year, Perich became a “called” teacher at the school after she became a commissioned minister in the church.

“To receive a call, a candidate must be selected by a local church congregation,” said a brief the church submitted to the Supreme Court that was prepared by lawyers at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty and Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School.

“At Hosanna-Tabor, the school board typically presents a choice of candidates to the congregation, and after prayerfully considering the candidates, the congregation extends a call via congregational vote,” the brief said. “Once the call has been accepted, the candidate is installed in office via the public rite of ‘commissioning,’ and is recognized as a ‘Minister of Religion, Commissioned’ — also known as a ‘commissioned minister.’”

As a minister in the school, Perich taught religious classes, led students in prayer and performed other religious tasks. She was also expected to integrate the teaching of the Lutheran faith into all so-called “secular” classes, including math, science, social studies and art.

In 2004, Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy and was unable to teach the fall semester. In January 2005, when she could not return, the school hired another teacher to take her place during the spring.

Later that month, according to a brief filed by the Justice Department’s Office of the Solicitor General, Perich informed the school’s principal, Stacey Hoeft, via email that she would be able to return to work the following month.

The principal informed her they had already hired a replacement teacher for the rest of the year.

The congregation then voted to ask Perich for a “peaceful release from her call.”

“‘Peaceful release’ is a religious act by which a congregation and a called minister agree to release one another from the mutual obligations of the call,” says the brief submitted by the church.

“Peaceful releases are common, and they leave the called minister in good standing and eligible for a new call.”

Perich declined to be peacefully released. In late February, she showed up at the school and met with Principal Hoeft.

“Later that day, Perich told Hoeft that if she were not reinstated, she would sue the church,” said the church’s brief. “Hoeft immediately asked Perich if that were what she really meant, because a lawsuit would clearly violate the church’s conflict resolution policy applicable to called employees. Perich repeated the threat.”

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod explained this teaching in its own brief: “St. Paul teaches in his first letter to the Corinthians that Christians should generally resolve their disputes internally without going to the secular courts for relief.” For this reason, the church has developed procedures for settling internal disputes.

A few weeks after the meeting between Perich and Hoeft, the Hosanna-Tabor congregation voted to “rescind Perich’s call” because she had threatened to sue the church contrary to the church’s teaching.

“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint against the church under the Americans With Disabilities Act, alleging a single count of retaliation,” says the church’s brief. “Perich intervened, alleging the same retaliation claim and adding a retaliation claim under state law. Neither complaint alleges disability discrimination. Both complaints request an order reinstating Perich to her former position as a commissioned minister, together with back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief ordering new ‘policies, practices, and programs’ at the church.”

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod told the court in its brief that its views on the ministry and the settlement of disputes may not be “widely shared” or “widely understood.” “But,” the church said, “they have been the views of orthodox Lutherans for centuries.”

Acting Deputy Solicitor General Leondra Kruger told the court, during oral arguments, that the federal government should be able to trump the church on these decisions.

“Their submission is that the hiring and firing decisions with respect to parochial school teachers and with respect to priests is categorically off limits,” said Kruger. “And we think that that is a rule that is insufficiently attentive to the relative public and private interests at stake, interests that this court has repeatedly recognized are important in determining freedom of association claims.”

Kruger contended this did not mean the government could order the Catholic Church to ordain female priests. But, even then, according to her argument, it would be a matter of the government weighing “the relative public and private interests at stake.”

What is at stake is the First Amendment and the religious freedom of all Americans

http://www.patriothobbits.com

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here.) The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government’s defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that the there’s a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this…the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn’t necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.

Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel’s concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.

Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you’re in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.

In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge’s question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer. (More on that exchange here). Kaytal has fallen back on the Necessary and Proper clause, insisting that it gives broader leeway to Congress.

Judge James Graham, a Reagan district court appointee who is temporarily hearing cases on the appeals court, said, “I hear your arguments about the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I’m having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the power as you’re defining it.”

Kaytal responded by referencing United States v. Morrison, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, and United States v. Lopez, which struck down gun free school zones. In those cases, Kaytal responded, the Supreme Court set the limit that the Commerce Clause had to regulate economic activities.

The health care market is unique, Kaytal insisted, because everybody will eventually participate. With the mandate, Kaytal said, “What Congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something. But failure to secure financing for something everyone is going to buy.”

Graham acknowledged Kaytal’s arguments, yet reiterated that he was “having trouble seeing the limits.”

The problem with the “health care is unique” argument – and this is me talking – is that it just creates an opening for future Congresses to regulate all sorts of things by either a) arguing that a particular market is also special or b) finding a way to tie a given regulation to health care.

For instance, the example that’s come up often is the idea of a law in which government forces individuals to eat broccoli.

During the Sixth Circuit argument, Kaytal said that such an example doesn’t apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms.

Yet that argument assumes that Congress passes such a law as a regulation of the food market. What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn’t difficult to see where that argument can go.

The broccoli example is really a proxy for a broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior – it could just as well be eating salad, or exercising. There’s no doubt that a huge driver of our nation’s health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. People who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation’s health care expenses, a number that’s set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to believe that future Congresses, looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstitutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld?

With most experts expecting the case to go before the Supreme Court, it seems the biggest obstacle for the Obama administration is figuring out where power would be limited if the mandate were upheld. Those challenging the law have made a clear and understandable limit by drawing a distinction between regulating activity and regulating inactivity (i.e. the decision not to purchase insurance). But simply saying the health care market is unique doesn’t actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.

The 11th Circuit hears the case next week brought by 26 states led by Florida

MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER
6/28/2010

Do you feel like you know enough about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to decide if she is fit to serve as a lifetime appointee on the highest court in the land?

Media Blackout of Supreme Court “Battle”.

Most people don’t, because the left-wing media have done a good job hiding what little we do know about her.

The Elena Kagan hearings began today, and few Americans are aware of her radical views on the Second Amendment, abortion, crime control, marriage rights, international law and many other critical issues.

Papers released by the William J. Clinton Library reveal Kagan’s belief that partial birth abortion needs to remain legal as the only certain way to protect the “health of women.” This is wildly out of the mainstream, and proves her commitment to a radical pro-abortion position.

Also during her time in the Clinton Administration, Kagan wrote an executive order to overturn nearly 30 years of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) precedent allowing the importation of certain hunting rifles to reclassify them as “assault weapons.” One of her own coworkers in the Clinton White House described this effort by saying “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

All of these questions and more may be raised and should be raised – because they certainly weren’t raised by the so-called “news” media that have been noticeably silent about President Obama’s pick to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Since predicting the Senate confirmation process of Kagan would be a “meat grinder” and a “battle,” the networks have been eerily quiet –the complete opposite of their reporting of the run-up to the confirmation hearings for Bush appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito hearings.

Kagan Argued Before Supreme Court: its Fine if The Law Bans Books Because Government Won’t Really Enforce It

She’s young, at 50, which means she could be on the court for a quarter century. And she’s never been a judge, which gives her a quality that Obama is known to have been seeking: someone to bring a different sensibility to a court that’s currently dominated by judges.

That particular lack of experience also means she does not have a long record of controversial rulings that could provide fodder for the presidents political opponents.

“I have asked President (Barack) Obama, ‘Let’s get somebody on the court that has not been a judge.’ They need to do more than thinking of themselves as these people who walk around in these robes in these fancy chambers.”  Does Harry Reid no know we are talking about the COURT.. A good place to have OUR best JUDGES.

The bar shares its ratings in an advisory capacity with the White House and the Senate, which votes on the nominees.  The committee considers a nominee’s “professional competence, integrity and judicial temperament.” It rates each nominee as “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified.”

Reid was set off by the ABA’s rating of Las Vegas attorney Gloria Navarro, who also appeared before the Senate committee as his choice and Obama’s nominee to become a U.S. district judge in Nevada. According to the association’s 15-member Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, a “substantial majority,” consisting of 10 to 13 members, rated Navarro “qualified,” while a minority rated her “not qualified.”

Based on the poor to incompetent decisions made by REID.  It might be time for him to be removed from his leadership position and set him up for a evaluation for competency.